Apprenticeship schemes were used extensively during the 19th century in order, it was hoped, to provide children with a stable employment. It was thought that these schemes would make them useful members of society and not be a drain on parish resources when they became adults. As such, apprenticeships were exceptionally popular for workhouse children. However they were not always viewed as such by the young people themselves. Indentures lasted seven years and young people could be brought before the magistrates for any infraction of the rules. When one young Rotherham lad found himself in front of the Rotherham magistrates resulting in his being sent to prison for six weeks, it took two years for him to get his revenge on his master.

On Wednesday 24 July 1844, blacksmith William Roberts charged his apprentice, Joshua Crawshaw with being a disorderly apprentice and he was committed by the Rotherham magistrates to gaol for six weeks. We have no evidence as to how old Joshua was, but two years later on Monday 7 September 1846, Joshua charged his master with not giving him sufficient food and decent lodgings which was contrary to his indentures. William Roberts was a married man with two children aged ten and eleven years of age. Joshua told the court that his master wife, Mrs Roberts had for several months been declared insane and as a consequence was confined to her bedroom. He stated that she had only been out of her room once in all that time. In her absence the care of the house was left to the eldest child, a girl aged 11 years. Not surprisingly because of her very young age, the house was in a most filthy state and Joshua complained that he had been obliged to sleep in bedclothes which had not been changed since the previous Christmas. The apprentice also complained that he did not have a clean shirt for a fortnight at a time and when he finally complained, his master had given him an old one of his own with one sleeve torn off. He told the magistrates that the meat for the family was bought by the little girl, and after it was cooked was kept in a drawer in the masters bedroom in which he slept with his two children. Inevitably when the meat was served up, it smelt so bad that the apprentice could not eat it, and the bread it was served with, was mouldy and disgusting. Joshua told the court that the house was never cleaned except very occasionally, when some of the neighbours came in to clean it out of pity for his master and his wife. He said that a short while previously, there had been fever in the house and one of the masters children, a little boy had died. Joshua had also been taken poorly at the same time, and had been bed ridden and unable to work for fifteen weeks. Since that time the house had never been cleaned once. The house was not only a nuisance to those who were forced to live in it, but to the neighbours also.

At this point Mr Roberts was asked if he had anything to say following his apprentices statement and he told the magistrates that Joshua spoke nothing but lies. He claimed that his daughter, although small, could clean the house ‘uncommonly well’. He also claimed that he had only kept the meat in the bedroom drawer to preserve it from the rats that infested the house. He asked the magistrates to cancel the indentures in order for him to rid himself of  his disorderly apprentice. One of the neighbours, a woman called Ann Stainrod described as ‘a respectable, elderly looking woman’ then gave her evidence. She told the court that she lived near Mr Roberts and said that the state of the house and Mrs Roberts was painful to see. She confirmed Joshua’s evidence that the house was completely filthy throughout and had not been cleaned for months. She said:

‘it was grievous to see the state of both the defendants, the children’s and the apprentice’s beds. No person could tell what the pillow slips or sheets were made of, they were so dirty. As for Mrs Roberts, she had been treated worse than a pig, as a pig had cleaner bedding, which she had not, and she was not washed more than once a month’.

The witness said that she had seen the meat which the family had to eat and it was generally bad, in consequence of the filthy state of the house. Mr Roberts himself had told her that they were forced to put more of their meat and bread in the pig trough than they had to eat themselves. Mrs Stainrod said that it was shocking and pitiable to see the state of Mrs Roberts  and that every time anyone came to the house, she would call out to them and beg them to bring her food. No person could pass the window of her room, which was over the blacksmith’s shop, but she would call out to them to help her. Every square of glass in the window where she was confined had been broken and the room was icy cold. At this point the magistrate, Mr Walker asked William Roberts if his wife ‘was the same female who was always at the window of the shop at Kimberworth, who had her hair cut very short?’ When Mr Roberts confirmed that she was, Mr Walker stated that he had frequently seen the poor woman at the window when passing through the village. Another of the magistrates, Mr Bosville told Mr Roberts that:

‘if through the will of the Almighty your wife was afflicted in that manner, that it was your duty not only to have some person to take care for her and the house, but to  have her removed as early as possible to some place where she would be under proper medical supervision and treatment.

At this point the Hon. and Rev. William Howard who was a magistrate as well as being on the board of the Guardians of the Poor, claimed that the matter had been looked into by the workhouse, but at that time there was just no place for her to go. Coroner Mr Badger, who was also in the court room, warned him that the Rotherham Board of Guardians would be liable if anything happened to the poor woman, and if she died and he had to hold an inquest ‘he would remember their laxity’. Mr Howard said that the Guardians had only recently been informed of the case, and had taken steps for the woman’s removal, but they could not find a vacancy in any of the Yorkshire Asylums.

Another neighbour called Sarah Bates confirmed the last witnesses statement and said that she had often gone to the house and was appalled at the condition in which the inhabitants lived. She concurred that the boy Joshua had been forced to wear dirty shirts for long periods and the bed linen was as black as soot from the chimney and unfit for any human beings to sleep in. She too had seen the meat for the family, which had been quite green on at least three different occasions, and the bread was so bad that it ‘drew out like cobwebs’.  Mr Whitfield on behalf of Joshua told the court that he had other witnesses who he could call if necessary, but he submitted that the witnesses evidence alone proved that Mr Roberts ‘did not supply his apprentice with sufficient good, wholesome food and lodgings’.  Mr Roberts only defence was to deny the witnesses statements and he claimed that the charge had been made out of malice by his apprentice for taking him to court two years previously. After consulting with the other magistrates on the bench, Mr Walker told Mr Roberts that after listening to all the evidence it was clear that there was serious negligence on his part. He would not cancel the indentures without Mr Roberts giving Joshua another trial, but he warned:

‘you must provide him with clean and proper lodgings in the village, where he could be comfortably accommodated and where he was given both clean bed and body linen to wear. He must also have sound food provided. We do not say  that it was impossible for the food to be unwholesome, as this might happen from meat being kept uncooked in hot weather, or the bread being made from bad corn. From the peculiar circumstances of your wife’s illness, we will give you another chance, but you must commence the amendment that very night or the boys indentures will be cancelled’. 

Mr Walker concluded that unless his wife was properly taken care of, Roberts would render himself liable to very serious consequences, before ordering the defendant to pay the court costs of 7s 6d.

There is no evidence as to whether Mrs Roberts  was taken to be cared for in an asylum, or whether Joshua successfully finished his apprenticeship to the blacksmith. Certainly the description of life at the shop in Kimberworth is terrible for us to read. However two years later in 1848 the town council was forced to appoint the Rotherham and Kimberworth Board of Health. From that point, the board members would regularly have to report to the council all such unsanitary living conditions experienced by the people of the town, and slowly matters began to improve.